I’d like to suggest that Audirvana take the Linux, Android approach to updates and upgrades.
Create a beta version and let users freely and openly try it out. Create a structure for people to create tickets to fix and track issues. No need to continue to be ‘cloak and dagger’ about updates, this isn’t the CIA, no national security threats here. Just be transparent from the start and ‘allow’ users to help during dev as supposed to releasing a product which for all intents and purposes is not release ready and performs more like a beta.
I will just say that this model seems to work very well for the many many Linux distros that use it -and- Android as well. From what I can see it not only allows users to feel as if they are a part of the dev process but also creates a buzz about a product for release date. In the end I see way less bugs, glitches etc and a lot more happy users with products that run very solid. Just updated my phone Beta Android 12.
Roon has the same approach when it comes to updates/upgrades. Very cloak and dagger, big secret about its updates. Will not confirm or deny etc. etc. Yet when it finally did update to 1.8 it was a total disaster. Believe it or not, this erodes the confidence in users, it creates frustration and in many ways makes companies look very bad, as if they don’t know what they are doing. Keep in mind, these are ‘paying’ customers who demand more perfection from a $1.99 BigMac than they do from a product that costs hundreds of dollars. It is a blessing that they remain loyal, partly due to the lack of variety in computer audio software. It took Roon six additional updates in rapid succession to finally have a product that was actually a release candidate.
Sorry to intrude, but does any Linux or Android user actually contribute financially?
We may be talking of something quite different here, Audirvana started as a freeware, but was and is stil the intellectual property of Damien Plisson.
Some users have certainly contributed some time for beta testing or else, and you can discuss with them here, but the ownership of Audirvana is well defined.
Many other users have brought forward their bug reports and suggestions, as users do.
Although I acknowledge the quality of audio rendition of Audirvana over the years, I do not believe that it alone can justify a monthly rent for the job done, and that is why I object, like you to the subscription model.
I think Audirvana Studio is an attempt to break free from the “one pony trick” previous iterations mostly were. But that is a completely different market, but this release shows us that freedom from the past is a long way ahead, all the more when many of us are accepting to provide 30 days of sweat and tears to help and suggest how to straighten this wonky release.
You might be pointing at something I observed over the years in many workplaces, but not exclusively in French companies.
It seems that many people there (but not all…) consider that the power lies in the detention and retention of information, when many other business cultures think that power resides in the diffusion of information. That cultural gap will not close anytime soon, but never say never…
This is interesting, but could you please break it down by actual user (not only the paying ones), and compare with…
…oh dear, MacOS does not charge anymore.
A comparison of cost per head with Windows will do then.
Update, upgrade OK - it’s normal. But blocking access to the ability to install the previous Windows version (just like now) - is that fair?
If your Windows “die”, you must install new and if you like Audirvana, then you MUST subscribe …